eym_sirius

There is a phenomenon that I have heard about - Maybe y'all have, too. It has to do with a spouse wanting the other spouse to NOT be attractive to the opposite sex. So the insecure spouse encourages weight gain and doesn't encourage the other to put the best foot forward for fear of that person running off with a new love.

Why should you be able to claim payments as an expense on the house? You do get to claim expenses where you actually spend money fixing it up. The deal is that you have to have the rental price at a level that allows you to pay the tax on the rental income and to still make a profit while you're paying the principal down.

You're still saying that "they" (NPR?) define who the middle class is? And that they can move people in and out of class status by the way that they describe them - and that's the accepted definition? Excuse the characterization of idiotic. And your supporting the method of defining middle class with your example? So if "they" define the middle class differently tomorrow, you'll just blindly accept what "NPR"(?) says the definition is? This is interesting because you're pretty much copping to a profile of parrot-stooge. You can just repeat what you've heard, you accept it without reservation

Well, sure! That's because those wishing to curb women's rights don't care one bit for the welfare of children. They just want to have the power over other people to tell them how to run their lives. After they have accomplished the short term goal of making healthcare decisions for strangers, they're done. That's the extent of their involvement. Until the unwanted child goes through the justice system and costs the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. But do the rightscurbers make the connection??? In a related story, Newt Gingrich's answer to the job situation is to fire u

NG -- Again -- Where did the 200K figure come from? Is there pending legislation that puts a tremendous tax burden on that group? If so, would you share that information. If not, then why are you talking about individuals making 200K per year???

This is what I've been saying for a couple of years now. From observing Congress and hearing Mitch McConnell say that his #1 job was to make sure that President Obama was a one-term President, and from observing Republicans attempting to stymie the President by going as far as voting against legislation that they personally sponsored if it would cast the President in a favorable light, one can only conclude that Congress has decided to stop working on our behalf and are working for their own selfish interests. Why wouldn't they take the obvious step of guaranteeing loans to small business

Okay, so your position is that the "middle class", according to congress is defined by comments made on NPR or by other such progressive media outlets? This is what I'm talking about! Between you and B.S. you won't actually come out and say what you mean. You're asked a pointed question and you give a nonsensical answer. Try it again -- This topic about the middle class shrinking. Is it shrinking because of what progressives are SAYING? [Yes or No] If the middle class is shrinking for another reason, what do you think that reason is? If you do not believe that it is really shrinking -

Where does the 200K figure come from? Is there pending legislation that unduly penalizes S-Corps and LLCs that claim 200K?

Now that makes sense! The middle class shrinks when wages do not keep pace with inflation. It doesn't shrink (as B.S. said) because people are SAYING certain things about it.

Okay, then you explain how it is that the middle class is ACTUALLY shrinking (see topic title) because some factions outside of government entities are attempting to attach their own definitions to it when THEY speak about it. How does that work? Try this on: Take this legislation that is being proposed. B.S. is saying that in this legislation the "middle class" is defined by NPR? Or by some group outside of Washington? That makes no sense. ["Today, the House is expected to vote on H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011, which addresses several key is

I probably should have added "Truthful/Trustworthy" to the list of non-negotiable necessary attributes. 'Cause if you can't trust the person - "Thain't" nothin' there.

It's interesting - that last quote. I had a girlfriend once that when we broke up (I found out that she was interested in playing the field behind my back) she told me that I'd never find anyone else like her. I indicated to her - "That's the general idea!"

Guess you had to be there. What BS said didn't make a lick of sense to me. I don't get how the perceptions of a few has an effect of actually shrinking the middle class.

There is a chance that there is something foreign in the wound that keeps it from healing. The body wants to wash it out through the hole, but the hole scabs over. If the scab comes off again and you still have the hole, you may want to irrigate it with saline solution or sterilized water. You'll want to keep the wound not coverered to allow it to flush out anything that shouldn't be there. I say these things, adding that you should do everything under the care and advice of a physician. Certainly, if there are signs of blood poisoning or if the wound becomes (let's see how I can say this

Obsessive types are usually control freaks. I've shared company briefly with people who always wanted to know what I was looking at. There's no way that I could live my life always being accountable to someone for the direction my head was facing! A person who hasn't traveled or read typically doesn't have a sufficient frame of reference to engage in anything but superficial discussions. I understand that some people have no need for understanding the world and their only concerns are those that are immediate. That's just not who I am and I'd get quickly bored with someone with limited e

Yeah - that's a dead giveaway -- if your friends AND family have serious questions about him/her. Sometimes an objective viewpoint is needed and if several people SAY something, then pretty much everybody is thinking it!

Here are a few red flags/green lights for me (when I was single): Red Flags: A person who talks about himself/herself almost exclusively A person who mention's his/her parental units a little too often A braggart or any kind of serial impressor like --A name-dropper A person who talks about his/her ex, or talks specifics about former girlfriends A stalker. Just showing up whereever you are is only seen as romantic in the movies. In real life, it merits a restraining order! A person who asks to borrow money. A person who has never traveled and doesn't read

Attractive: Confident Healthy Engaging Organized Helpful Assertive Unattractive Vindictive Needy Clingy Unhealthy Disloyal Critical

This is a really good topic! I think that physical attraction is more important at the beginning of a relationship, for the purpose of pair-bonding. When a couple bonds, the scope of their attraction broadens to include things that are not so superficial. When this happens, later-in-life declination in the looks department becomes more accepted than if real bonding hasn't taken place. Like Star and Dru's Nan said - If somebody is -- or becomes (that happens, too) ugly on the inside - It makes them ugly on the outside to me. After a short period of marriage, if the other person said t

You misunderstood about careers without fees. I was quoting and the term "careers without fees" didn't make any sense. Regarding "redistribution of the wealth" that;s a republican think-tank meme. All laws and regulations regarding funds could be placed in that category, even Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. So it's pretty meaningless to drop a meme on PCOM. Either you're already infected or you're not receptive to it. You're way off base with liberals spending money CONGRESS spends money, irrespective of the party. But that's just more Rightwing-speak.

Oh -- So this is personal. I see. I'm a liberal, but I also believe in capitalism. A private company or public company, to be consistent with the point I previously made about Wal-Mart, can set its policies as it sees fit. If that means PCOMdeleting your posts that violate their rules --- I'll repeat that phrase for emphasis -- THEIR RULES -- That is THEIR POLICY. In this case, how dare YOU criticize them for following their own policies??? But let me get this straight -- You posted an advertisement on PCOM and you don't have a paid membership to advertise - Is that right? That's ag

What is a career without a fee? That didn't make any sense. LPPT's point seemed to be that she resents having to pay taxes for food stamps for people who work at Wal-Mart, just so Wal-Mart can make the big profits. It's a good argument, except instead of Wal-Mart the food stamp side of the equation should be the focus, IMO. If you're saying that PCOM won't allow you to post job openings on THEIR private business site, it seems like you're wanting to tell PCOM how to run their business, but you don't want anyone telling Wal-Mart how to run its business.

ZC - The article (April, 2011) is regarding a California-Berkely Research Brief. Here's what the research brief says: ["In summary, we find that a Big Box Ordinance or similar legislation that raises wages would provide significant, concentrated benefits to workers, almost half of them in poor or near-poor families, while the costs would be dispersed in small amounts among many consumers across the income spectrum."] http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/bigbox_livingwage_policies11.pdf The referenced study, from April of this year, is absolutely saying that th

I'm fine with the concept of minimum wage. If a company can't operate while paying minimum wage, then the company doesn't have a viable business plan, IMO. Other than that, the government should not get involved, especially in the area of a "living wage" because it presumes a 40 hour work week. Working conditions? Sure. The government should make sure that Constitutional rights are not being violated. Anti-trust oversight? Sure, the government should make sure that competition and not collusion, trickery, blackmail or other nefarious activites propel the economy or a particular industry. So th

There's a natural dynamic at work, here. The educational level is roughly equal to the job description. One could hardly argue that Wal-Mart employees are, across-the-board, overqualified. I'm not knocking Wal-Mart employees, by the way. They have a choice in the matter! Whatever their circumstances are, this employment opportunity was a good fit at the time for them. Just because it may have been the only opportunity is not a reason to fault the employer. As for a Wal-Mart employee receiving food stamps because his pay is so low? I think that food stamps should be made available to those